JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad recommending that the revision against the order dated December 4, 1970 passed by the Judicial Officer (Revenue), Akbarpur, district Faizabad is case No. 97/382 under Section 229-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act may be allowed and the impugned order set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Chhedu and Raja Ram, sons of Nirahu, had filed a suit under Section 229-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against Phalai, Gaon Sabha, Kalepur Mahual and the State of U.P. Only the State of U.P. through the District Government Counsel, Faizabad filed a written statement contesting the suit on December 28, 1966. The suit was decreed ex-parte on January 6, 1967. Ram Bali, Chhotku, Ram Bahal, Udai Ram, Avadh Chaube, Algu, Phoordul, Balak, Budhi Ram, Gooder, Pheertu Ram, Ram Sabad, Jairaj, Moti Ram, Soonail, Ram Singh, Bishun, Kuber, Gheelangi, Nookhai and Ishraj filed an application in the trial court on June 24, 1976 for the setting aside of the ex-parte decree alleging that the plaintiff had played a gross fraud on the court and abused the process of the Court by obtaining the ex-parte decree. They claimed that the land in suit was old and established 'Abadi' in which the plaintiff had no rights and that the plaintiff had collusively filed the suit by keeping the petitioners in absolute darkness. On January 31, 1968, the State of U.P. also moved an application for setting aside ex-parte on the ground that the plaintiff had played fraud on the Court as the land in suit was 'Abadi' and there were houses of various persons of the village along with their appurtenants to this land. The trial court by its order dated December 4, 1970 set aside the decree dated January 6, 1967, but rejected the application of Ram Bali and others on the ground that they may either file fresh suit for establishing their claims or may apply afresh for being impleaded as parties in this case. Setu and Chathoo, sons of Nirahu have filed a revision against this order. 4. The very first significant point to be observed is that the present revisionists Setu and Chathoo were no parties to the suit at any stage and their revision is, therefore, not maintainable. Setu and Chathoo, sons of Nirahu have filed a revision against this order. 4. The very first significant point to be observed is that the present revisionists Setu and Chathoo were no parties to the suit at any stage and their revision is, therefore, not maintainable. The original plaint was filed by Chhedu and Raja Ram. Chhedu and Raja Ram have neither been impleaded nor it has been shown that they have died and the present revisionists are their heirs. The present revision thus is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. Section 333, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, however, empowers the Board of Revenue to call for the record of any suit or proceeding decided by any subordinate Court with a view to see whether the subordinate Court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the interest of justice, therefore. I may proceed to examine the case on merits also. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that the trial court has erred in law in invoking its inherent powers under Section 151, C.P.C. He has argued that the trial court has erred in law in applying Section 151. C.P.C. which is not to be used when another remedy was open. On a question being put on this point the learned counsel for the revisionists has failed to show what other remedy was open either to the aggrieved parties or to the trial court other than the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned trial court has rightly held and this point is conceded by the learned counsels of both parties, that an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX, Rule 13. C.P.C. could be moved within a month of the date of the decree. Thus, this remedy being barred, Section 151, C.P.C. was only remedy open. The learned trial court has rightly held and this point is conceded by the learned counsels of both parties, that an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX, Rule 13. C.P.C. could be moved within a month of the date of the decree. Thus, this remedy being barred, Section 151, C.P.C. was only remedy open. Section 151 reads a follows: "151 Saving of inherent power of Court - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court." Section 151, C.P.C. is not limited in its scope either by any period of limitation or by any other technicality. The essential requisites for invoking this Section are, firstly to secure ends of justice and secondly to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Applying these two criteria, it is abundantly proved from the record that the plaintiffs Chhedu and Raja Ram tried to play a fraud on the Court. The plots in suit are recorded as 'Abadi' in the extract of the Khatauni 1374 Fasli filed by the plaintiffs themselves. The plaintiffs neither impleaded the residents of this Abadi, Ram Bali and others, as defendants not shown how they could be the Bhumidhars and groveholders of 'Abadi'. Apart from this, the trial court's ex-parte decree dated January 6, 1967 is in contravention of the law and is a nullity. The trial court was not empowered under the law to decree the suit ex-parte merely on the ground that the defendants were not present on a particular date. The record shows that the defendant No. 3, State of U.P. had filed a written statement on December 21, 1966 contesting the suit. Where a written statement has been filed contesting the suit, the trial court is bound to frame issues at the very first hearing of the suit Order XIV, Rule 1, C.P.C. reads as follows:- "1. Framing of issues - 1. Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. (2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. Framing of issues - 1. Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. (2) Material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. (4) Issues are of two kinds: (a) issues of fact, (b) issues of law. (5) At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and after such examination of the parties as may appear necessary, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. (6) Nothing in this rule requires the Court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence." The trial court's omission to frame any issues is a fatal error. Again, where the defendant fails to appear on any date of hearing, the trial court can only hear the case ex-parte, record the evidence of the plaintiff and thereafter decide it on merits. The Court is, however, not empowered to give an ex-parte decree without framing any issues, without recording any evidence and without considering the merits. Thus, the trial court's ex-parte decree dated January 6, 1967 being a nullity, there was no illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Judicial Officer (Revenue) in setting aside this decree on December 4, 1970. 7. The learned Additional Commissioner has gone completely astray in not considering the legal aspects of the case but in being guided by the fact that the application of the State of U.P. for setting aside the ex-parte decree was filed one year twenty five days after the ex-parte decree. The learned Additional Commissioner has not at all referred to the application of Ram Bali and others moved on June 24, 1967 for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The learned Additional Commissioner has not at all referred to the application of Ram Bali and others moved on June 24, 1967 for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Apart from this, he should have considered that no period of limitation was prescribed for exercising powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that there has been a gross abuse of the process of the Court in passing the ex-parte decree dated January 6, 1967 and that the decree itself was a nullity. 8. The learned counsel for the revisionists has referred to Thakur Prasad v. Raja Ram Singh, 1947 R.D. 147 and Ram Charan v. Rup Sarup, 1952 R.D. 244, in which the Board of Revenue have held that Section 151 is meant for very special and extraordinary cases of injustice and this section is not to be used when another remedy is open. This principle is a sound one. As we have seen, the present case is indeed a special and extraordinary case of injustice and the only remedy open was recourse to Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judicial Officer has rightly set aside the ex-parte decree. He has neither exercised jurisdiction not vested in him nor committed any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. 9. Disagreeing with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby dismiss the revision.